Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

New Hampshire House Votes to Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention, 337-15


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 24,602 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:47 PM

New Hampshire House Votes to Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention, 337-15
 

CONCORD, N.H. (Mar. 13, 2013) Today in a lopsided vote, the Democrat-controlled State House of Representatives in New Hampshire approved Representative Dan Itse’s HB399, the Liberty Preservation Act.  If passed into law, HB399 would nullify the NDAA “indefinite detention” powers that Barack Obama signed into law at the end of 2011.  The vote was 337-15 (roll call here).

 

HB399 would prohibit state cooperation with indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act.

The state of New Hampshire shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 within the boundaries of this state. The department of safety is hereby directed to report to the governor and the legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States government to secure the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 through the operations of that or any other state department.

In order to ensure this statewide noncompliance, the Liberty Preservation Act includes criminal charges for any state agent in violation of the act:

Any public officer, employee, or agent of the state of New Hampshire, or any employee of a corporation providing services to the state of New Hampshire that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

HOUSE REPUBLICAN ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT

In a press release from the House Republican Alliance, Rep. Al Baldasaro- Londonderry stated, “In passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sections 1021 and 1022, the Congress of the United States of America has suspended the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus, allowing any American citizen to be indefinitely detained without warrant.

 

This power can only be invoked during times of rebellion or invasion, when there is ongoing open warfare on American soil. However, Congress has declared no such war, making those sections of the NDAA unconstitutional. New Hampshire proposes to declare those sections unconstitutional and to protect its citizens by making it a crime to carry them out or aid in their execution within the borders of New Hampshire.

 

We do not believe the federal government can lock up our citizens without just cause. By passing HB 399, we are asserting our duty as a State to protect our citizens. ”

 

NONCOMPLIANCE

Noncompliance with federal law is 100% noncontroversial both legally and constitutionally. There’s absolutely ZERO serious thought that supports the idea that the federal government has the constitutional authority to require state agents to enforce federal laws. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this more than once in recent history. Statements to the contrary are absurd.

 

The federal government most certainly needs compliance, if not outright assistance, from the states when it does its dirty deeds. Information-sharing, logistics assistance, access to infrastructure, help from sheriffs blocking roads, and the like. They can rarely pull things off without help from state and local officials

.

Just ask the DEA when they come to California. They’re never able to pull off a raid of a marijuana dispensary without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Or, look at the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. Without states shouldering the burden of operating and funding insurance exchanges, the entire act could collapse.

 

The fact is this: Without state compliance and assistance, many unconstitutional federal acts are little more than a house of cards. Refusing compliance on a state or local level is a big deal – and it sets the stage for others to do the same.

 

Such noncompliance on a wide scale is very effective in rendering an unconstitutional federal act null, void or just unenforceable. Learn how this method plays out and works as a method of nullification, HERE.

 

http://blog.tenthame...tention-337-15/



#2 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,836 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:19 PM

:clap: